|
The total showed in the graph is correct..45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
Ye... its just that what role does that total play? As it doesn't look like we have any overall membership anymore. Looks like just a total for now!
|
|
|
|
|
It keeps us from having to total it ourselves.  .45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
Certainly!
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I'll add it.cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
What about an overall membership status?
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder how that would be calculated. I suppose each category would have to have a priority assigned, and then that priority somehow applied to the number of points for that category, coming up with some sort of weighted value. At that point, you could add them all together and average that, and that would be your membership level..45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a formula, using my current points as an example:
My current points:
Author 19373
Authority 18912
Debator 54528
Editor 424
Enquirer 495
Organizer 515
Participant 3350
----------------------
Total 97597
If we assigned a priority to each category, as follows for example:
Author = 7
Authority = 6
Debator = 5
Participant = 4
Organizer = 3
Editor = 2
Enquirer = 1
The actual average would 13942.
The weighted average would be 19009.
If we reversed the priority sequence, the weighted average would be 8876.
For comparison, Christians numbers would look like this:
Author 14035
Authority 181685
Debator 85375
Editor 626
Enquirer 149
Organizer 606
Participant 6436
----------------------
Total 288912 (OMG!)
The actual average would 41273.
The weighted average would be 58305.
If we reversed the priority sequence, the weighted average would be 24241.
Now that we have those arbitrary weighted averages, where to we establish the overall membership levels?.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
Do we actually need an overall member level?
We have a reptutation total. That in itself is never used for anything other than bragging rights. Reputation is used based on the level of the type of reputation pertaining to the current action.cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Reputation is used based on the level of the type of reputation pertaining to the current action.
OK, but what if the current action is bragging?
|
|
|
|
|
| OK, you got me. cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I used it as something to strive for. A goal...
Chris Maunder wrote: We have a reputation total. That in itself is never used for anything other than bragging rights.
Don't you think there should be some sort of recognition beyond bragging rights, though? I mean seriously - Christian has almost 300,000 reputation points. That's gotta be worth something here. Maybe instead of having a combined membership status, having a Medal of Honor award for people that exceed a certain reputation points level. .45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
I'll ask Dmitry, our database legend if this is practical. The amount of data is a little crazy (as you could imagine). It's always possible - we just need to see how much work is involved.
But in general: yes, a good idea.cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Many thanks Chris, et al, for jumping on this. .45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
| Just sorry it took so long. cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, most importantly edit permissions are back... 
|
|
|
|
|
I was going through the reputation types section and came across this anomaly.
If I downvote a message on a message forum I get a point, but if I downvote a question (or answer) on the quick answer section, I don't.
Is there any particular reason behind this?Me, I'm dishonest. And a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest.
Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for...
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Let me fix that. cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes there is some text - "Iframe/JavaScript:" - above the big banner in the header, which forces the banner to move a bit down, making the bottom part of it impossible to see - Not that I enjoy looking at them, but it just looks messy.
It seems to happen only with the "The Planet" ad - you know, the one with the guy talking to a robot.
Here's a screenshot so you can see what I mean:
http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/6262/banneruqc.jpg[^]
Not really a big issue, but still..![Green Alien | [Alien]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/alien.gif) Kristian Sixhoej
"You can always become better." - Tiger Woods
|
|
|
|
|
You're viewing beta.codeproject.com?
Try www.codeproject.com instead. It's not beta  cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I published an article about 45 minutes ago and it is still pending approval. This has never happened before, so I'm wondering if everything is in order.
Context Sensitive History. Part 2 of 2[^]
It looks like this is related to the post below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think this kinda establishes that the permissions system is all out of whack. You're a platinum author, and your articles shouldn't require approval before being made available..45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly! Permissions need a look out... lots of limitations suddenly.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorted mate."WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
